Not to call the kettle black or anything, but I think you are gravely mistaken to say that an additional 400 ft/lbs goes from insufficient to sufficient.

That is much less than the difference between a 45 Colt and 454 Casull, and both will cleanly take a bull elk at 50 yards, with the same bullet, and break both shoulders. This is not apples and oranges, so save that argument. It all revolves around bullet construction.

Thanks buffalobob.
The Scenars are quite impressive indeed. With a bc of .675 and a speed of just 3050, they will produce the power to accomplish what I want. Even the accubonds with a bc of .550 at 3200 will still break the shoulder blade at around a mile! YOu know from emails we have sent each other that I have found about 800 ftlbs will get the job done (from our calculations, it is actually 700 something but I like to round up) and these bullets will both easily accomplish it according to Exbal, Infinity, Ballistic explorer, and PS workbench. The elk I shot last January at 820 yards was killed with the Accubonds, and I loaded up some 7mm 160 accubonds for a friend of mine last fall and he killed a great bull at 25 yards and the mushroom looked identical to mine. Accubonds obviously work at all ranges! I would have to look back at my post, but I think my impact energy on the elk was nearing the 800 ft/lb mark but was a touch higher.
The key as you mention with the Scenars is construction. When I sawed a few 300 mk's and Scenars and accubonds awhile back, I was really impressed with them all but the Scenars looked like they would mushroom just a touch more at long range thanks to the huge hollow point. I don't know if I will actually take a shot at 1 mile, but 1500 should be realistic at some point if the conditions permit!

If all else fails, the Moag will be handy to have around. It launches the 300 grain MK at 3100 for an impressive crunch! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Being a 338 fan myself I believe that your barking up the right tree. While the energy is getting a little on the low side, energy is not the end all be all. The specs you talk about 250 @ 3150 should give you about 800 ft/lb or so at a mile. This is about the same a a 30-06 165 gr @ 700 yards and I know several people and one in particular who have taken elk at a distance that the energy was around 800 ft/lb. Elk are a tough animal but it does not take much to shoot clear through one if you are not "boning" them so to speak. I do beleave that as we all know it is mostly about the shooter. I hope your new projects is "hummer".

With all due respect. Do you see my point? I simply addressed some issues that are legitimate. Are they not? Not picking on GG at all but I have projects I am considering for a .338 and I have some issues with my own date etc. If it were anyone elses post besides GG's would there be a need of a mod to interject?

I am not attempting to engange in an ethics argument here but data is data no? If anything there can actually be something learned here not argued over. I didn't act aggressively, and I qualified my intial post by saying I have my own project I'm thinking about.

I'll cease this discussion, but there are definite legitimate marginal issues here. Why we can't talk about them is beyond me.

I am interested in the 338 thunder and the project and what capabilities it has, from 50 yards to 1 mile or even further. Ethics are up to the indiviual and his abilities to shoot. I would like to keep it to that subject. By the way Ric, don't need to ever call anyone a kid! Thanks GG I would love to know more of your project. Preacher